Internet millionaire and alleged cyber-pirate Kim Dotcom has admitted owning one of the rarest pieces of Nazi memorabilia in existence.

On the eve of the launch of his Internet Party, Dotcom has confirmed he purchased one of the first copies of Adolf Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, signed by the man who went on to establish the Third Reich.

Dotcom fronted up to 3 News to talk politics, not expecting questions about Nazi memorabilia.

"I'm a Call of Duty player right, so if you know the game Call of Duty it's all about World War II," says Dotcom. "I'm a big fan of that and I've bought material from Stalin, from Churchill and Hitler."

That "material" includes a very significant and contentious piece of Nazi history.

"I did buy a book at an auction, which Adolf Hitler wrote – Mein Kampf."

Mein Kampf, or My Struggle, is Hitler's fanatical autobiography, full of what would become Nazi ideology. Four years ago Dotcom bought quite possibly the rarest copy on earth.

"Adolf Hitler wrote that book in prison," says Dotcom. "He wrote it with a cellmate there. He signed that book out to that cellmate. So it was one of the first prints and probably the first book that he signed."

In the book trade an "association copy" is a book that has been inscribed and signed by the author to a person associated with them. I'd like to err on the side of generosity and assume Three News isn't implying that Dotcom (who happens to be German, you know) is a neo-Nazi, but, of course, WhaleOil went screaming over that top yesterday...

Here's a modest proposal for Sabin, who ended his report with this sanctimonious load of flannel:

It is confession time for Dotcom, clearing the decks ahead of his party launch tomorrow – another controversial chapter in the tale of Dotcom.

Perhaps Sabin and Three News should come clean themselves. Were they fed this story by Cameron Slater? What, if any, public interest test was passed here? Would this even have been a story if Kim Dotcom was a collector of high end Churchillania, or Soviet-era memorabilia?

Whatever you think of Kim Dotcom and the Internet Party, it's worth having a good hard think about how far this can go. After all, if mere possession of an expensive book means you must agree with its contents, should my own (second-hand) paperback copy of Mein Kampf put me byond the pale? How about the several Bibles I own -- rich in passages that exhort the faithful to commit acts that here and now would range from the merely offensive to the downright criminal. And don't even start on the fiction...

I think the quotes like " “the greatest German who has ever lived”." would be more incriminating than ownership of the book , if they're correct . But the video that Slater's post links too as evidence against Dotcom is obviously done by Dotcom as a joke , I'd have thought even Slater could do better than that . I suspect some of the other quotes from Dotcom are also out of context.

I don't believe any books should be banned or that ownership of them implies agreement with all ideas in them. Still, Dotcom's copy of Mein Kampf is really a piece of memorabilia that just happens to be a book. Whether you then think collecting WW2 artefacts in general or Nazi ones in particular is problematic is a different question.

Whether you then think collecting WW2 artefacts in general or Nazi ones in particular is problematic is a different question.

Dotcom is also in the position of being a German individual who's living in a country where it's entirely legal to trade in Nazi artifacts. In Germany, it's a crime. His BF2 fanaticism is well-known, so being interested in owning such historical pieces is entirely in keeping with his other interests.

I think the quotes like ” “the greatest German who has ever lived”.” would be more incriminating than ownership of the book , if they’re correct

It's hard to say. As others have noted, it would be significant if, as claimed, there was a Nazi flag hanging in Dotcom's basement that was taken down before Campbell Live visited for a tour. But that would mean it was there at the time of the police raid -- and it's very hard to imagine that the cops would not have found a way to make that knowledge public.

I have always found KDC's appeal mystifying. But then I'm not the target market, so it doesn't matter. The whole KDC saga has always read like an Auckland story with a lot of knotted knickers about sfa to this provincial nobody.

Now he owns a top-of-the-tree collector's rarity by history's pre-eminent monster.... well yuk.

Hahahaha. Whaleoil is such a card. :) Talk about drawing a long bow. I am no great fan of DotCom, but the little weasel of propaganda that Whaleoil produced about KDC’s ownership of Mein Kampf would be worthy of Goebels.

we live in a country were jewish graves are desecrated - would you want any of that sector of society considering you a hero

it's why i find dot com so confusing, but he's not hiding it, and who know maybe as someone growing up in Germany reading it is part of demystifying it all for himself? but why the rarest copy possible. He's a confusing man and it's strange that this has come out just as he's in talks with the mana party

Someone's showing you round their house, and they open a door and say "Here's where I keep my copy of Mein Kampf that Hitler personally signed, along with my other Nazi memorabilia" -- yeah, I'd judge them.

If you are arguing that this was germane to his legal problems, then I guess the answer is no -- but is it relevant when we are talking about someone who wants to bankroll a political party that may be able to influence the composition and policies of our next government? Then I think the answer is likely yes.

People with lots of money tend to collect stuff. KDC just happens to collect WW2 memorabilia (and very fast cars). And purchasing a rare signed copy of Mein Kampf is a shrewd investment. It will appreciate in value long after the current stock market bubble wipes out the next wave of speculators.

And purchasing a rare signed copy of Mein Kampf is a shrewd investment. It will appreciate in value long after the current stock market bubble wipes out the next wave of speculators.

Well, sure, but probably so are investments in companies that make land mines. That doesn’t mean I don’t reserve the right to be judgey as fuck about you if that’s the kind of investment you choose to make, you know?

Really, I think the lesson for everyone here is that any situation where you are forced to make a statement affirming your total disagreement with the Nazi party is a situation you probably want to avoid being in, *especially* if you’re trying to get into politics.

Someone’s showing you round their house, and they open a door and say “Here’s where I keep my copy of Mein Kampf that Hitler personally signed, along with my other Nazi memorabilia” – yeah, I’d judge them.

Do we know that he has “other Nazi memorabilia” apart from the book, though? (Also, Dotcom doesn't keep the book around the house. It's in storage in Europe.)

The one thing that did occur to me is that the video game connection is plausible. My younger son got very interested in Chernobyl and the USSR through playing the Stalker games. I bought him a Chernobyl staff ID badge from an army surplus store for his birthday and he was stoked. We’ve also watched a couple of documentaries about Stalin and the USSR in WW2 together.

So I’m not scandalised by the book. But if some of the other allegations turn out to be true, hmmm …

I wonder if the fact the he is German and owns a copy of a book by Hitler made it news worthy to @3news. (I'm sure there is more than one politician in NZ who has a copy of that book and many other political biographies)

Isn't nice that with just a tiny scratch you can reveal New Zealand's racist side

Okay, the exaggeration was over the top, but the point was that something can be an investment - a good one! - and that doesn't make it not distasteful. A better comparison might be banks that made subprime mortgages, or BP after the Gulf spill. Valid investments? Probably. Liable to make people form particular opinions of you? Also probably.

Okay, the exaggeration was over the top, but the point was that something can be an investment – a good one! – and that doesn’t make it not distasteful. A better comparison might be banks that made subprime mortgages, or BP after the Gulf spill.

But huge material harm flowed from each of those. What material harm comes of Dotcom owning a rare, if clearly controversial, book? My thought when Brook Sabin asked Dotcom whether owning the book was an “ethical investment” was “no, that’s not what ethical investment means”.

I'm quite angry about this news story and the inference being made - its a book, ownership of doesn't denote anything about the owner other than possession. Let us judge the man by his character and actions not his things

This is a book that you can borrow from your local library or buy from a number of local book retailers- sure not signed but isn't it the contents that offend?

But huge material harm flowed from each of those. What material harm comes of Dotcom owning a rare, if clearly controversial, book?

No material harm comes from investing in companies that have stopped doing the harmful things – the spill has happened, the subprime mortgages are largely no longer offered – but you’re still investing in a company that has value partially because of actions they took that led to that harm, and the book has value because of, well, Hitler. It might not be technically unethical but at best, from my point of view, it’s utterly tasteless. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal – but like I said, any time you have to explicitly deny you agree with the Nazis…

(Note: for me, it’s not the fact he owns Mein Kampf, it’s a historical text, whatever; it’s the autographed copy bit that crosses whatever line there is to cross for an individual book.)